Advertisement

Usability Is Ageless: Conducting Usability Tests with Older Adults

  • Rachel FranzEmail author
  • Barbara Barbosa Neves
Chapter
First Online:
  • 499 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter discusses the role of usability testing in evaluating technologies with older adults (aged 65+). We draw on our experience of designing and evaluating usability tests and on a critical engagement with the standard literature to present a set of strategies to design, implement, conduct, and analyze usability testing. Some strategies include choosing suitable locations to conduct the usability test, designing warm-up questions, selecting an appropriate usability testing technique (i.e., Co-Discovery), and using mixed-methods approaches. Additionally, we reflect on challenges encountered in the field from recruitment limitations to handling impression management efforts by participants. To understand and address these issues, we rely on cross-disciplinary insights and approaches from Human–Computer Interaction and sociology.

Keywords

Usability test Older adults Think Aloud Impression management User-centered design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2004). User-centered design. In Bainbridge, W. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 445–456). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080–1109.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, J. (2014). The self. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cappeliez, P. (1990). Social desirability response set and self-report depression inventories in the elderly. Clinical Gerontologist, 9(2), 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carstensen, L. L., & Cone, J. D. (1983). Social desirability and the measurement of psychological well-being in elderly persons. Journal of Gerontology, 38(6), 713–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chadwick-Dias, A., McNulty, M., & Tullis, T. (2002). Web usability and age: how design changes can improve performance. SIGCAPH Computers and the Physically Handicapped, 73–74, 30–37.  https://doi.org/10.1145/960201.957212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A., et al. (2006, June). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (1998). Age differences in attitudes toward computers. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53B(5), P329–P340.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/53B.5.P329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D., Jr. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts: Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Dell, N., Vaidyanathan, V., Medhi, I., Cutrell, E., & Thies, W. (2012). “Yours is better!”: Participant response bias in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI’12, 1321–1330.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208589.
  12. Dickinson, A., Arnott, J., & Prior, S. (2007). Methods for human-computer interaction research with older people. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(4), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dourish, P. (2003). The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 12(4), 465–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Draper, S. W., & Norman, D. A. (1986). User Centered System Design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction.Google Scholar
  15. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2009). Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franz, R. L., Baecker, R., & Truong, K. N. (2018). “I knew that, I was just testing you”: Understanding older adults’ impression management tactics during usability studies. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) (Under Review).Google Scholar
  18. Franz, R. L., Munteanu, C., Neves, B. B., & Baecker, R. (2015). Time to retire old methodologies? Reflecting on conducting usability evaluations with older adults. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (pp. 912–915). New York, NY, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2786567.2794303.
  19. Franz, R. L., Neves, B. B., Demmans Epp, C., Wobbrock, J. O., & Baecker, R. (2018). Accommodating participant needs: Technology evaluation with frail older adults (Pending Publication).Google Scholar
  20. Goffman, E. (1975). The presentation of self in everyday life. In Life as theater, 173.  https://doi.org/10.2307/258197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. González, A., Ramirez, M. P., & Viadel, V. (2015). ICT learning by older adults and their attitudes toward computer use. Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research, 2015.Google Scholar
  22. Greenhalgh, T., & Stones, R. (2010). Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: Strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Social Science and Medicine, 70(9), 1285–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanson, V., Gibson, L., Coleman, G., Bobrowicz, A., & McKay, A. (2010). A engaging the disengaged: How do we design technology for digitally excluded older adults. In Proceedings of DIS.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, J. R. (2014). Usability: Lessons learned… and yet to be learned. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(9), 663–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, K. A., Leary, M. R., & Rejeski, W. J. (2000). Self-presentational concerns in older adults: Implications for health and well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(i), 169–179.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2203_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Melenhorst, A.-S., Rogers, W. A., & Caylor, E. C. (2001). The use of communication technologies by older adults: Exploring the benefits from the user’s perspective. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 45, pp. 221–225).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neves, B. B., Franz, R. L., Judges, R., Beerman, C., & Baecker, R. (2017). Can digital technology enhance social connectedness amongst older adults? A feasibility study. Journal of Applied Gerontology.Google Scholar
  28. Neves, B. B., Franz, R. L., Munteanu, C., Baecker, R., & Ngo, M. (2015). “My Hand Doesn’t Listen to Me!”: Adoption and evaluation of a communication technology for the “Oldest Old.” Proceedings of the ACM CHI’15 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (1593–1602).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702430.
  29. Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things.Google Scholar
  31. Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. Mental Models, 7(112), 7–14.Google Scholar
  32. Prieto-Flores, M.-E., Forjaz, M. J., Fernandez-Mayoralas, G., Rojo-Perez, F., & Martinez-Martin, P. (2011). Factors associated with loneliness of noninstitutionalized and institutionalized older adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 23(1), 177–194.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264310382658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Quesenbery, W. (2001). What does usability mean: Looking beyondease of use’. In Annual Conference-Society for Technical Communication (Vol. 48, pp. 432–436).Google Scholar
  34. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Sayago, S., Sloan, D., & Blat, J. (2011). Everyday use of computer-mediated communication tools and its evolution over time: An ethnographical study with older people. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shackel, B. (1991). Usability-context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. Human Factors for Informatics Usability, 21–37.Google Scholar
  37. Soubelet, A., & Salthouse, T. A. (2011). Influence of social desirability on age differences in self-reports of mood and personality. Journal of Personality, 79(4), 741–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trewin, S., Marques, D., & Guerreiro, T. (2015). Usage of subjective scales in accessibility research. In ASSETS’15 The 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, (October), 59–67.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2700648.2809867.
  39. Van den Haak, M., De Jong, M., & Schellens, P. (2007). Evaluation of an informational web site: three variants of the think-aloud method compared. Technical Communication, 54(1), 58–71.Google Scholar
  40. Van Den Haak, M., De Jong, M., & Schellens, P. (2003). Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Den Haak, M., De Jong, M., & Schellens, P. (2004). Employing think-aloud protocols and constructive interaction to test the usability of online library catalogues: A methodological comparison. Interacting with Computers, 16(6), 1153–1170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waycott, J., Vetere, F., Pedell, S., Morgans, A., Ozanne, E., & Kulik, L. (2016). Not for me: Older adults choosing not to participate in a social isolation intervention. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 745–757). New York, NY, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858458.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options